Excellent forcefulness, strong declarative tone. You primarily need to work on not repeating yourself, especially towards the end of the speech. That will also make it clear to you that you need to emphasize the "why" portion of your claim that the card is better.
Mini Rebuttal Redo Practice
More specific, what is your plan—don’t lose yourself there—why is the impact size question
2nd—nice specificity—explain the Carlin evidence—I like ur emphasis—why is size important
Practice Round 1 (Baxter)
Stand up straight, put something up to read off of
Highlight your evidence
Speed drills and endurance drills
Really nice job in cross-x
Need to do more to direct your arguments specifically to theirs
Don’t just read cards here, need to make some other arguments as well
Excellent job extending this evidence, don’t just sort of re-read it, explain what it says and why it is so good—when you say they don’t answer something, make sure you explain what the impact of that is
PRACTICE ROUND 2 (CLEMMONS)
1AC sounded very good. I think that you need to work on the timing of the 1AC, as I don't think that you really read enough solvency evidence. You should also confer with your partner after the speech to prep him on what you didn't read.
CX was a little combative, but make sure you keep that confident approach when answering questions.
When you are asking questions, try to make sure that you are drawing distinctions between the Aff and the Neg, especially on the CP. The questions that Thomas was trying to ask when he was CXed are the questions that you should be asking of the 1NC.
1AR As weird as this sounds, make sure that you explain the harm of having an acidic ocean. Going line by line means that you are going to answer all the arguments, even if it means that you say that the argument is not important. You can also group a lot of arguments that are similar together and then answer them as one. It sounds like this is what your strategy was in the 1AR.
Practice Round 3 (Baxter)
You sound much better standing up speaking clearly etc., good work adjusting that—keep pushing yourself on endurance drills, you will get fast and very understandable very quickly
Order for the 1ar needs more here—you sound very strong and confident though and you are moving through things pretty efficiently. Skipping some of the repetition when you impact an argument will get you even more time to wreck on their stuff.
Use this phrase “extend the 2AC XXXXX” to really nail it down to connect the flow to the previous arguments
You are making smart arguments about the politix disad, but you need to use some debate-lingo to speed yourself up and communicate efficiently. For instance “case outgweighs” and “non-ux”. Your next step on this comparison is to begin considering risk (like how much risk of this vs how much risk of that)
Mini Rebuttal Redo
This rebuttal was really close to being a complete rebuttal, I like that you put in an overview, but your overview was missing the most important part. You hint that there is "baggage" to the CP, but you should identify what you mean in the overview (The CP causes environmental degradation and kills private investment etc.). Right now this speech is very "head down" it could be a 2AC instead of a 2AR. Try to make your rebuttal more "head up" get out of the line by line and explain clearly why it is you are winning.
Practice Round 4 Friday 8/8
Don’t be repetitive on the top of explaining that things won’t be done
Your solvency arguments would be better used alongside extending the 1nc solvency arguments, rather than putting them as separate and new, use some of the evidence to back you up on this argument
Really nice distinctions in answering 2ac arguments, make sure you are referencing what evidence you are talking about specifically.
You haven’t read a cp, you don’t have a dplan, the judge is voting for the status quo if they vote negative
Make an argument about the ethics of extinction in order to win your impact comparison arguments
Good job of starting with an overview, but it needs to be macro not micro level
Watch out for swearing, not all your judges are me—congressPEOPLE
Practice Round 8/9 (Liz)
You need to read link arguments with this politics disad. Also, one off politics needs to outweigh and turn the case, so add that impact module to the bottom of the disad shell - particularly if you're just reading the disad with no counterplan to solve all or parts of the aff. You should also be grappling with their ethics argument sooner, because their card about food distribution is pretty good and can definitely calc your disad out of the round. Solvency is not a reason to not vote aff - it just diminishes the probability and/or magnitude of their impacts. It's fine to read solvency args, but they shouldn't be read instead of offense. Additionally, I think the uniqueness of the aff goes the wrong way for your NOAA corruption arg at the top of case. If the SQ is badly regulated and the industry is collapsing now, it seems like the difference between the SQ and the impact of your NOAA card is difficult to establish. Since the default position of the negative is to defend the status quo, you want to establish that the SQ is good (your disad or case turn does not already exist so that the plan causes a unique, bad impact rather than making an already shitty situation worse).
Rebuttal Redos Monday 8/11 (Baxter)
--say “ethix debate, they say they solve”—how do they not distribute food
--good, make sure that you impact “value to life”
--“on the fish stocks debate, our evidence is better because…”
--severity of wars argument, introduction can be briefer
--scrutiny and being observed, proves it
--you don’t need to be polite to extend ur evidence not “I would like you to extend our” just say “extend the 2ac Hogarth evidence”
--not repetitive on the “pros” of the desilva argument
--impact of the inevitability argument (whats the impact in debate and then in real world terms)
--whats the impact of winning their evidence is biased
Practice Round 7 Monday 8/11 (Baxter)
--keep doing these speed drills, they are making a MASSIVE difference in how you sound
--overview should make the comparison that is necessary—the disad versus the case impacts
--focus on efficiency, how are they different, cuz they are completely different
--keep things on focus, each argument is only about that argument, big picture sstuff is where the overview comes in
Practice Round Tuesday 8/12 (Kehl)
Everyone needs to work on better distinguishing between the tags and the warrants. Also, no one was very effectively using their time, everyone was spending almost the whole speech just on defense, and only 1-2 sentences on the offense. Make sure we focus on the offense and the interaction of positions. Also, make sure that the questions we ask are more to the point, while the trick questions are fun to ask, you should be asking relevant questions as well. Lastly, in the rebuttals, we all need to get out of the weeds and explaining our arguments at a more meta-level, I should actually be hearing words like "offense, defense, probability, etc." Don't just say you are winning an argument, explain what winning the argument means for the round.
Impact Comparison Drill 8/12
--make the comparison with the argument you are about to deal with right away, that way your explanation of the story of your impact is minimized to the relevant thing
--don’t just list the categories of impact stuff at the end, don’t just say its fast
--really nice job keeping your speed and attitude up throughout the speech
--not just all three, talk about which one is going to matter more than the other, prolly
--nice job of the start, the probablitly arguments are strong and the empirical examples are a great way to make this comparison
--DON’T GO FOR ALL THREE, don’t be repetitive at the end of the debate
Topicality Drill 8/13
--its not really about explore or development, its who the development is done by
--good idea of what is going on
--make some more use of your evidence
--quick reference to their arguemnts “they say overlimits” or “Limits debate”
--really nice distinction of the individual warrants at the bottom of the debate
--cross apply/answered above
Practice Round 8/13 (Liz)
You should highlight down these cards in the 1AC about federal mandates. You could even remove a couple of them from the shell (like your first couple Shroder '10) and just read them as solvency deficits to the States CP in the 2AC, depending on the 1NC strategy. As it is, these cards are a little repetitive and seem strange in the context of the 1NC that just reads politics. Similar to my advice to Conrad, you should also raise the pitch of your voice when you read cards so that it's easier to go faster with less energy. It doesn't need to be a weird Mickey Mouse falsetto, but you should experiment with something that's comfortable for you. I'd also recommend the backwards drill (read the words in a card backwards) with a new aff to disassociate the words from their meaning when you're reading the cards forwards. So it's not that you're reading the words backwards like "noitcnitxe", but you're reversing the order of the words "quo status the in inevitable is extinction". This aff also seems very advantage counterplan-able to me. Make sure if you're reading Heg and Global Warming for your advantages that you've got some "offshore wind key and the only thing that can solve" cards so that the neg can't just do something else to solve the advantages and read cards that say offshore wind is bad.
Rebuttal Redos--8/14 (Baxter)
--“how do you solve hegemony?” the status quo solves it? Say that—what is the big impact of that
--nice job using your evidence to talk about the jobs statistics
--no ux for the link turn on the heg debate
--just call it heg
--do the warming debate first
Practice Debate 11—8/15 (Baxter)
--stand up straight all the way during the 1ac, the only way to get it to work
--kind of a lot of 1ar prep time, there aren’t a lot of diverse argjjuments
--say that “fiat is durable”- quicker way to do ti
--gotta diversify this argumetns and be clear on politix—what does it mean “its not there’
--say “the cp is the status quo’
---why not extending a permutation?
---impact the solvency deficit to the cp
--1AR needs to be the MOST efficient speech, keep hacmmering on it
--nice job dealing with the evidence comparisons in a brief and compressed fashion
First speech/evidence drill:
Excellent forcefulness, strong declarative tone. You primarily need to work on not repeating yourself, especially towards the end of the speech. That will also make it clear to you that you need to emphasize the "why" portion of your claim that the card is better.
Mini Rebuttal Redo Practice
More specific, what is your plan—don’t lose yourself there—why is the impact size question
2nd—nice specificity—explain the Carlin evidence—I like ur emphasis—why is size important
Practice Round 1 (Baxter)
Stand up straight, put something up to read off of
Highlight your evidence
Speed drills and endurance drills
Really nice job in cross-x
Need to do more to direct your arguments specifically to theirs
Don’t just read cards here, need to make some other arguments as well
Excellent job extending this evidence, don’t just sort of re-read it, explain what it says and why it is so good—when you say they don’t answer something, make sure you explain what the impact of that is
PRACTICE ROUND 2 (CLEMMONS)
1AC sounded very good. I think that you need to work on the timing of the 1AC, as I don't think that you really read enough solvency evidence. You should also confer with your partner after the speech to prep him on what you didn't read.
CX was a little combative, but make sure you keep that confident approach when answering questions.
When you are asking questions, try to make sure that you are drawing distinctions between the Aff and the Neg, especially on the CP. The questions that Thomas was trying to ask when he was CXed are the questions that you should be asking of the 1NC.
1AR As weird as this sounds, make sure that you explain the harm of having an acidic ocean. Going line by line means that you are going to answer all the arguments, even if it means that you say that the argument is not important. You can also group a lot of arguments that are similar together and then answer them as one. It sounds like this is what your strategy was in the 1AR.
Practice Round 3 (Baxter)
You sound much better standing up speaking clearly etc., good work adjusting that—keep pushing yourself on endurance drills, you will get fast and very understandable very quickly
Order for the 1ar needs more here—you sound very strong and confident though and you are moving through things pretty efficiently. Skipping some of the repetition when you impact an argument will get you even more time to wreck on their stuff.
Use this phrase “extend the 2AC XXXXX” to really nail it down to connect the flow to the previous arguments
You are making smart arguments about the politix disad, but you need to use some debate-lingo to speed yourself up and communicate efficiently. For instance “case outgweighs” and “non-ux”. Your next step on this comparison is to begin considering risk (like how much risk of this vs how much risk of that)
Mini Rebuttal Redo
This rebuttal was really close to being a complete rebuttal, I like that you put in an overview, but your overview was missing the most important part. You hint that there is "baggage" to the CP, but you should identify what you mean in the overview (The CP causes environmental degradation and kills private investment etc.). Right now this speech is very "head down" it could be a 2AC instead of a 2AR. Try to make your rebuttal more "head up" get out of the line by line and explain clearly why it is you are winning.Practice Round 4 Friday 8/8
Don’t be repetitive on the top of explaining that things won’t be done
Your solvency arguments would be better used alongside extending the 1nc solvency arguments, rather than putting them as separate and new, use some of the evidence to back you up on this argument
Really nice distinctions in answering 2ac arguments, make sure you are referencing what evidence you are talking about specifically.
You haven’t read a cp, you don’t have a dplan, the judge is voting for the status quo if they vote negative
Make an argument about the ethics of extinction in order to win your impact comparison arguments
Good job of starting with an overview, but it needs to be macro not micro level
Watch out for swearing, not all your judges are me—congressPEOPLE
Practice Round 8/9 (Liz)
You need to read link arguments with this politics disad. Also, one off politics needs to outweigh and turn the case, so add that impact module to the bottom of the disad shell - particularly if you're just reading the disad with no counterplan to solve all or parts of the aff. You should also be grappling with their ethics argument sooner, because their card about food distribution is pretty good and can definitely calc your disad out of the round. Solvency is not a reason to not vote aff - it just diminishes the probability and/or magnitude of their impacts. It's fine to read solvency args, but they shouldn't be read instead of offense. Additionally, I think the uniqueness of the aff goes the wrong way for your NOAA corruption arg at the top of case. If the SQ is badly regulated and the industry is collapsing now, it seems like the difference between the SQ and the impact of your NOAA card is difficult to establish. Since the default position of the negative is to defend the status quo, you want to establish that the SQ is good (your disad or case turn does not already exist so that the plan causes a unique, bad impact rather than making an already shitty situation worse).Rebuttal Redos Monday 8/11 (Baxter)
--say “ethix debate, they say they solve”—how do they not distribute food
--good, make sure that you impact “value to life”
--“on the fish stocks debate, our evidence is better because…”
--severity of wars argument, introduction can be briefer
--scrutiny and being observed, proves it
--you don’t need to be polite to extend ur evidence not “I would like you to extend our” just say “extend the 2ac Hogarth evidence”
--not repetitive on the “pros” of the desilva argument
--impact of the inevitability argument (whats the impact in debate and then in real world terms)
--whats the impact of winning their evidence is biased
Practice Round 7 Monday 8/11 (Baxter)
--keep doing these speed drills, they are making a MASSIVE difference in how you sound
--overview should make the comparison that is necessary—the disad versus the case impacts
--focus on efficiency, how are they different, cuz they are completely different
--keep things on focus, each argument is only about that argument, big picture sstuff is where the overview comes in
Practice Round Tuesday 8/12 (Kehl)
Everyone needs to work on better distinguishing between the tags and the warrants. Also, no one was very effectively using their time, everyone was spending almost the whole speech just on defense, and only 1-2 sentences on the offense. Make sure we focus on the offense and the interaction of positions. Also, make sure that the questions we ask are more to the point, while the trick questions are fun to ask, you should be asking relevant questions as well. Lastly, in the rebuttals, we all need to get out of the weeds and explaining our arguments at a more meta-level, I should actually be hearing words like "offense, defense, probability, etc." Don't just say you are winning an argument, explain what winning the argument means for the round.Impact Comparison Drill 8/12
--make the comparison with the argument you are about to deal with right away, that way your explanation of the story of your impact is minimized to the relevant thing
--don’t just list the categories of impact stuff at the end, don’t just say its fast
--really nice job keeping your speed and attitude up throughout the speech
--not just all three, talk about which one is going to matter more than the other, prolly
--nice job of the start, the probablitly arguments are strong and the empirical examples are a great way to make this comparison
--DON’T GO FOR ALL THREE, don’t be repetitive at the end of the debate
Topicality Drill 8/13
--its not really about explore or development, its who the development is done by
--good idea of what is going on
--make some more use of your evidence
--quick reference to their arguemnts “they say overlimits” or “Limits debate”
--really nice distinction of the individual warrants at the bottom of the debate
--cross apply/answered above
Practice Round 8/13 (Liz)
You should highlight down these cards in the 1AC about federal mandates. You could even remove a couple of them from the shell (like your first couple Shroder '10) and just read them as solvency deficits to the States CP in the 2AC, depending on the 1NC strategy. As it is, these cards are a little repetitive and seem strange in the context of the 1NC that just reads politics. Similar to my advice to Conrad, you should also raise the pitch of your voice when you read cards so that it's easier to go faster with less energy. It doesn't need to be a weird Mickey Mouse falsetto, but you should experiment with something that's comfortable for you. I'd also recommend the backwards drill (read the words in a card backwards) with a new aff to disassociate the words from their meaning when you're reading the cards forwards. So it's not that you're reading the words backwards like "noitcnitxe", but you're reversing the order of the words "quo status the in inevitable is extinction". This aff also seems very advantage counterplan-able to me. Make sure if you're reading Heg and Global Warming for your advantages that you've got some "offshore wind key and the only thing that can solve" cards so that the neg can't just do something else to solve the advantages and read cards that say offshore wind is bad.Rebuttal Redos--8/14 (Baxter)
--“how do you solve hegemony?” the status quo solves it? Say that—what is the big impact of that
--nice job using your evidence to talk about the jobs statistics
--no ux for the link turn on the heg debate
--just call it heg
--do the warming debate first
Practice Debate 11—8/15 (Baxter)
--stand up straight all the way during the 1ac, the only way to get it to work
--kind of a lot of 1ar prep time, there aren’t a lot of diverse argjjuments
--say that “fiat is durable”- quicker way to do ti
--gotta diversify this argumetns and be clear on politix—what does it mean “its not there’
--say “the cp is the status quo’
---why not extending a permutation?
---impact the solvency deficit to the cp
--1AR needs to be the MOST efficient speech, keep hacmmering on it
--nice job dealing with the evidence comparisons in a brief and compressed fashion